alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 08502**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 08502\08502_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

08502\08502_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 08502\08502_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 08502\08502_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08502\08502_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08502\08502_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08502\08502_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08502\08502_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

08502\Certification Statement Plant ID 08502.pdf Plant certification statement x 08502\Supplemental Documents\08502_MAP-1 G-1160.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

08502\Supplemental Documents\08502_SE-1 and SE-2 dry fly ash F-1018.2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08502\Supplemental Documents\08502_SE-1 Ash system F-1018.1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08502\Supplemental Documents\08502_SE-2 Ash system F-2018.1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08502\Supplemental Documents\WB-1 F-2025.3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
ITM -IS

CCA # 13-13-00011-CR OFFENSE: Capital Murder

STYLE: JOSE GONZALI

TRIAL COURT:

TRIAL COURTS:

ES III v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

105th District Court

11-CR-4141-D

Hon. Angelica Hernandez

i

COUNTY: Nueces

FOR REHEARING IS:

MOTION

TRIAL COURT JUDGE:

DISPOSITION: Affirmec

DATE:

DATE: 8/14/14

JUDGE: Garza

SUPP CLK RECORD

JUSTICE:

PUBLISH:

CLK RECORD:

PC S

DNP:

RPT RECORD: SUPP RPT RECORD

STATE BR: SUPPBR

APPBR: PROSE BR

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

CCA# m-\s

l/\Q SE. Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

ffAtyK /

DATE: <96//7/^0jy

JUDGE:

MOTION FOR REHEARING IN

CCA IS: ON

JUDG£:

rfcO ^£ petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

DATE /v//(//j0/r

riU U*As4t-J~^

JUDGE

Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

Y OF MAN

ON

PC:

DNP:

MOTION FOR STA DATE IS:

JUDGE:
['PJ '2~ r l3Mp:^|STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

^ S FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

VENICE JET CENTER, LLC, P ^ docket No. 16-09-05 

Complainant, 

V. 

CITY OF VENICE, FL, 

Respondent. 

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS 

Pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.13(f), Attorney for Respondent City of Venice, Florida, Arthur P. Berg, 

hereby submits this Notice of Change of Address. Effective immediately, the contact 

information for Mr. Berg is as follows: 

Arthur P. Berg 

KAPLAN KIRSCH & ROCKWELL LLP 

445 Park Avenue 

9* Floor 

New York, NY 10022 

Telephone: (212)836-4048 

Facsimile: 646-514-5440 

E-mail: aberg@kaplankirsch.com 

Respectfully submitted this 11'*^ day of November, 2009: 

Lisa A. Reynolds' 

KAPLAN KIRSCH & ROCKWELL LLP 

1675 Broadway, Suite 2300 

Denver, CO 80202 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this day served a true copy of the foregoing Notice of Change 

of Address on the following parties at the following addresses this 11"^ day of November, 2009: 

FAA Office of the Chief Counsel 

Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, AGC-610 Room 925 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Original and Three Copies 

Via Federal Express Number 7981 2971 5469 

Gianluca Morello, Esq. 

Dominique Pearlman, Esq. 

Fowler White Boggs, P.A. 

501 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1700 

Tampa, FL 33602 

One Copy 

Via U.S. Mail 

Elizabeth Newman 

Office of the Chief Counsel, Airports and Environmental Law Branch 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW, Room 923-M 

Washington, DC 20591 

1 courtesy copy 

Via U.S. Mail 

Dana L. Loose 

Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                          58,333
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      443
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               484,906
<PP&E>                                       2,788,004
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,298,410
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,562,041
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        63,041
<OTHER-SE>                                     419,617
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,298,410
<SALES>                                            717
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   717
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  375,811
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              46,975
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (421,994)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (421,994)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (421,994)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2



TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY



Certification of Periodic Financial Report

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



Each of the
undersigned officers of Tampa Electric Company (the Company) certifies, under the standards set forth in and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Dated:  August 13, 2003 |  | /s/ R. D. Fagan         |  | 
|----------------------- |  | ----------------------- |  | 
|                        |  | R. D. Fagan             |  | 
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer |  | 



|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated:  August 13, 2003 |  | /s/ G. L. Gillette     
|                        |  | Gordon L. Gillette     
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Tampa Electric Company and will be retained by Tampa Electric Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Michael J. Reiser, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Commissioner of 

Social Security, 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

Case No. 2:11-cv-1010 

JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH 

Magistrate Judge Kemp 

Defendant. 

ORDER 

This case is before the Court to consider a Report and Recommendation issued by the 

Magistrate Judge on December 11, 2012. The time for filing objections has passed, and no 

objections have been filed to the Report and Recommendation. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS 

the Report and Recommendation. The plaintiffs statement of errors is SUSTAINED to the 

extent that this case is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. §405(g), sentence four. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

IS/ George C. Smith 

George C. Smith 

United States District Judge 

Case: 2:11-cv-01010-GCS-TPK Doc #: 20 Filed: 01/10/13 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 3, 2009

p0331 

# Order

April 3, 2009

137069

JAMES LEWIS, Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 137069 COA: 261349 State Tenure Comm: 04-000008 BRIDGMAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Respondent-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Chief Justice, a stipul ation signed by counsel for the parties agreeing to the dismissal of th is application for le ave to appeal is considered, and the application for leave to appeal is DISM ISSED with prejudice and without costs.
**** 

**Exhibit 4.24**

**** 

**Summary of Shareholders’ Agreement of Cresca S.A**

**** 

**Parties:** Brasilagro – Companhia Brasileira de Propriedades Agrícolas and Carlos Casado S.A

**Purpose:****** On October 5, 2016, BrasilAgro  – Companhia Brasileira de Propriedades Agrícolas (“BrasilAgro”) and Carlos Casado S.A. (“Carlos Casado”),entered into a shareholders’ agreement pursuant to which they agreed to try to sell  all the land that Cresca S.A. (“Cresca”) owned for a 120-day period as of the execution date of the agreement (“Shareholders’ Agreement”). 

The parties also agreed that if either party  failed to dispose of the totality of the land owned by Cresca within the 120-day period, they would be required to proceed with the division of  the ownership of the land among themselves (BrasilAgro and Carlos Casado).

Among other provisions of the Shareholders’ Agreement, the parties also agreed upon  the following:

-          The parties agreed on the Termination of Advisory Agreement (*Contrato de Asesoramiento*) entered into on September 3, 2008 by and between Cresud S.A.C.I.F. and Cresca.  The parties established that Cresca would have to pay Brasilagro the amount of U$S 476,345.00 for the termination.

-          The parties agreed that Cresca would pay U$S 229,000.00 to Carlos Casado as professional fees for technical assistance, within the first business day following the  Ordinary Meeting indicated in Section 7 of the Shareholders’ Agreement.

-          The parties agreed that Cresca would cancel part of the loans made by the shareholders for an amount of approximately US$ 6 million, i.e., approximately US$ 3 million for each shareholder, within the first business day after the  Ordinary Meeting indicated in Section 7 of the Shareholders’ Agreement.

-          Finally, the parties also agreed to convene a General Meeting in order to approve management accounts and elect the officers.

 

 

 

****
```

[111th Congress Public Law 336]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 124 STAT. 3587]]

Public Law 111-336
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To amend the Act of August 9, 1955, to modify a provision relating to 
  leases involving certain Indian tribes. <<NOTE: Dec. 22, 2010 -  [S. 
                                2906]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LEASES INVOLVING CERTAIN INDIAN TRIBES.

    The first section of the Act of August 9, 1955 (25 U.S.C. 415), is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), in the second sentence, by inserting 
        ``and land held in trust for the Kalispel Tribe of Indians, the 
        Puyallup Tribe of Indians,'' after ``the Kalispel Indian 
        Reservation''; and
            (2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``, the Puyallup Tribe 
        of Indians, the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, or the 
        Kalispel Tribe of Indians'' after ``Tulalip Tribes''.

    Approved December 22, 2010.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 2906:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SENATE REPORTS: No. 111-246 (Comm. on Indian Affairs).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010):
            Sept. 22, considered and passed Senate.
            Dec. 14, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
Case: 2:10-cv-01119-EAS-TPK Doc #: 4 Filed: 02/09/11 Page: 1 of 1  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-11T16:18:54-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
No. 51127.

#### Protests 53272-K, etc., of Biddle Purchasing Co. et al. (Baltimore, etc.).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2008108EN.01001701.xml

| 29.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/17

---

Call for proposals under the ‘2008 Cooperation’ work programme of the 7th EC Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities

(2008/C 108/10)

Notice is hereby given of the launch of call for proposals under the ‘2008 Cooperation’ work programme of the 7th Framework Programme of the European Community for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2007 to 2013).

Proposals are invited for the following call. Call deadlines and budgets are given in the call text, which is published on the CORDIS website.

‘2008 Cooperation’ Specific Programme:

Theme: Energy

Call Identifier: FP7-ENERGY-2008-TREN-1

This call for proposal relates to the work programme adopted by Commission Decision C(2008) 1598 of 25 April 2008.

Information on the modalities of the call, the work programme, and the guidance for applicants on how to submit proposals is available through the CORDIS website: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/calls/

---
Case: 2:11-cv-00881-EAS-NMK Doc #: 69 Filed: 08/01/13 Page: 1 of 2  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00881-EAS-NMK Doc #: 69 Filed: 08/01/13 Page: 2 of 2  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-11T21:52:23-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
#### Richard L. Campbell and another, *Respondents, v.*William C. Clarke, *Appellant.*

— Order reversed and motion granted, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by Brady, J.
Exhibit 32



                           Section 1350 Certifications

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of
     the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  each  of the  undersigned  officers  of
     TransNet  Corporation  (the  "Company")  hereby  certify to such  officer's
     knowledge that:

1.   The  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the  Company  for the fiscal  period
     ended December 31, 2008,  fully complies with the  requirements  of Section
     13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.   The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
     respects,  the  financial  conditions  and  results  of  operations  of the
     Company.





/s/ Steven J. Wilk
-----------------------------------
Steven J. Wilk
Chief Executive Officer

Date:  February 14, 2009


/s/ John J. Wilk
-----------------------------------
John J. Wilk
Chief Financial Officer

Date:  February 14, 2009
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2011-1413

Directorate Identifier: 2011NM062AD

SB560XL-32-41 --- 2/25/11

GOODRICH 3-1571-32-7 --- 2/25/11

GOODRICH CMM 32-45-48, R3 --- 2/25/11

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 23

- 00519

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.J.C. , M.J.J.C., V.P., A.N.B., and D.A.P., Children

From the 225th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022

- PA

- 00753 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor , Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE RIOS

, JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ , AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, that portion of the trial court’s Order of Termination terminating appellant’s parental rights is REVERSED and judgment is RENDERED denying the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services’ petition to terminate appellant’s parental rights. In all other respects the trial court’s Order of Termination is AFFIRMED. No costs of appeal a re assessed because appellant qualifies as indigent.

SIGNED November 8, 2023.

_____________________________ Irene Rios, Justice
# C_2007235EN.01001501.xml

| 6.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/15

---

Action brought on 23 July 2007 — ecoblue v OHIM — BBVA (Ecoblue)

(Case T-281/07)

(2007/C 235/27)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: ecoblue AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Osterrieth and T. Schmitz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 April 2007 in Case No R 844/2006-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 April 2007 in Case No R 844/2006-1;

| — | reject the opposition filed by Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. against the ‘Ecoblue’ word mark applied for; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposition filed by Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. against the ‘Ecoblue’ word mark applied for;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Ecoblue’ for services in Classes 35, 36 and 38 (application No 2 871 598).

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word marks ‘BLUE’ (Community trade mark No 1 345 974), ‘BLUE JOVEN’ (Community trade mark No 2 065 100), ‘BLUE BBVA’ (Community trade mark No 2 065 621), ‘TARJETA BLUE BBVA’ (Community trade mark No 2 277 291), ‘QNTAME BLUE’ (Community trade mark No 2 391 878), ‘HIPOTECA BLUE’ (Community trade mark No 2 392 181), ‘HIPOTECA BLUE JOVEN’ (Community trade mark No 2 794 998) and ‘MOTOR BLUE JOVEN’ (Community trade mark No 3 060 878).

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and application for registration rejected.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since the opposing marks are not similar and there is therefore no likelihood of confusion.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
.--· 

ROBIN GODDARD 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

Civil Action 2:11-cv-809 

Judge Michael H. Watson 

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

Defendant. 

ORDER 

This matter is before the Court for consideration of the August 10, 2012 Report 

and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, to whom this case was 

referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). (ECF No. 14.) The Magistrate Judge 

recommended that the Court reverse the Commissioner of Social Security's 

non-disability finding and remand this case to the Commissioner for further proceedings 

consistent with the Report and Recommendation. 

The Report and Recommendation specifically advises parties that the failure to 

object to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen days of the Report results in 

a "waiver of the right to de novo review ... by the District Judge and waiver of the right 

to appeal the judgment of the District Court." (Report and Recommendation 17, ECF 

No. 14.) The time period for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation has 

expired. The Commissioner has not objected to the Report and Recommendation. 

Case: 2:11-cv-00809-MHW-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 09/18/12 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate 

Judge. Noting that no objections have been filed and that the time for filing such 

objections has expired, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court REVERSES the Commissioner of Social 

Security's non-disability finding and REMANDS this case to the Commissioner for 

further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Ml HAEL H. WAT N, JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

2 

Case: 2:11-cv-00809-MHW-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 09/18/12 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
#### George BOEHM d/b/a BOEHM & ASSOCIATES v. Lorin MOENCH d/b/a MOENCH INVESTMENT COMPANY, LTD.

CA 85-313

718 S.W.2d 491

Court of Appeals of Arkansas En Banc

Opinion delivered November 5, 1986

*219*Mobley & Smith,*by: *William F. Smith,*for appellant.

*James R. Marschewski,*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Upon review of the briefs in this case, we find that both the appellant’s and appellee’s abstracts flagrantly violate Ark. R. Sup. Ct. and Ct. App. 9(d). The appellant failed to include in his abstract the pleadings and the judgment from which he appeals. The appellee’s supplemental abstract is not an impartial condensation of the records, as the appellee consistently underscores portions of the testimony, a practice prohibited by Rule 9. Furthermore, the appellee’s supplemental abstract does not correct the deficiencies discovered in the appellant’s abstract.

While we could affirm the decision under Rule 9(e)(2), we find that action to be unduly harsh as the appellant has a sufficient abstract to show there may be merit in his position. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 9(e)(2), we will give the appellant’s attorney twenty (20) days from today, November 5, 1986, to reprint the brief, at the attorney’s expense, to conform to the requirements of Rule 9. The appellee will be granted fifteen (15) additional days from the date the appellant’s brief is filed in which to file a revised brief.

Because the reprinting of the appellee’s brief is caused at least in part by his own attorney’s violation of Rule 9(d), the appellee’s attorney will be responsible for the expense of reprinting the appellee’s brief, except to the extent it is revised due to changes in the appellant’s brief — those expenses shall be paid for by the appellant’s attorney. The appellee will be required to file a detailed statement of costs so that the Court may determine the relevant expenses to be paid by each attorney.